Bugs in Amber – What They Really Tell Us

Recently, Italian scientists found the world’s oldest mites in amber (fossilized resin from coniferous trees). The samples are said to be 230 million years old, and yet “they’re dead ringers for (modern) gall mites,” said the lead author David Grimaldi. To evolutionists, this is a surprising find because the world has supposedly changed quite a bit since their existence.

Also, Derek Briggs, director of the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, called the bugs’ discovery tantalizing, adding that it could help researchers further understand how life evolved on land. Oh really?

What does this finding really tell us about life on Earth? First, if (and that’s a big if) the samples are truly 230 million years old, then life has not changed, at least for these mites and presumably for other life as well. In other words, no evolution has taken place over this vast time period.

How is this going to help our understanding of evolution? It doesn’t. What it does support is that God created life after its own kind not to change. God allowed variation within a kind so there would be diversity but not life evolving from one kind to another. So it doesn’t surprise the creationist that these mites show little to no change over time. That is what we would expect to see, based on God’s Word.

Second, if there is little to no change in the mites, perhaps the dating of the amber samples is off. Perhaps by a lot. God’s Word indicates that the Earth and all of creation are 6,000 or so years old. If these samples are only, say, 3,000 to 5,000 years old, would the evolutionist expect to see any change over such short period of time? Probably not. Their friend is long ages … and the more time, the better. So either way – long period of time or short period of time – the evolutionist and old agers have a problem explaining these samples. But it's no problem for those of us who believe in God’s Word. This is exactly what we would expect to find.

This article is based on an interview broadcast by Broken Road Radio. To hear the original interview and many others on biblical creation topics, go to http://brokenroadradio.com/morning-show-september-3-2012/.

Recently, Italian scientists found the world’s oldest mites in amber (fossilized resin from coniferous trees). The samples are said to be 230 million years old, and yet “they’re dead ringers for (modern) gall mites,” said the lead author, David Grimaldi. To evolutionists, this is a surprising find because the world has supposedly changed quite a bit since their existence.

Also, Derek Briggs, director of the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, called the bugs’ discovery tantalizing, adding that it could help researchers further understand how life evolved on land. Oh really?

What does this finding really tell us about life on Earth? First, if (and that’s a big if) the samples are truly 230 million years old, then life has not changed, at least for these mites and presumably for other life as well. In other words, no evolution has taken place over this vast time period.

How is this going to help our understanding of evolution? It doesn’t. What it does support is that God created life after its own kind, not to change. God allowed variation within a kind so there would be diversity but not life evolving from one kind to another. So it doesn’t surprise the creationist that these mites show little to no change over time. That is what we would expect to see, based on God’s Word.

Second, if there is little to no change in the mites, perhaps the dating of the amber samples is off. Perhaps by a lot. God’s Word indicates that the Earth and all of creation are 6,000 or so years old. If these samples are only, say, 3,000 to 5,000 years old, would the evolutionist expect to see any change over such a short period of time? Probably not. Their friend is long ages … and the more time, the better. So either way – long period of time or short period of time – the evolutionist and old agers have a problem explaining these samples. But it's no problem for those of us who believe in God’s Word. This is exactly what we would expect to find.

This article is based on an interview of Dr. Don Clark on Broken Road Radio. To hear the original interview and many others on biblical creation topics, go to http://brokenroadradio.com/morning-show-september-3-2012/

Comments

Submitted by Remo Williams (not verified) on Thu, 2012-09-06 09:46.

I was stationed in Hawaii, (Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Air Station on Oahu), in 1973. I found some amber-like stuff oozing from a palm tree. There were no insects in it, and it was of the consistency of chewed gum. I put a bit, the size of a marble into a film canister. Many years later, I came upon that film canister, and found the resin to be harder than wood. On a fling, a friend of ours took it to the university where he works, and had it tested. The report came back that it was spruce amber, and over 150,000 years old. I never did tell them, "The rest of the story."

Submitted by stevejs on Thu, 2012-09-06 10:17.

Remo, you don't look a day older than 140,000 years!

Submitted by April (not verified) on Thu, 2012-11-01 12:17.

Are you sure that you're not 150,000 years old? I mean, you must be, because scientists can't be wrong.

Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Tue, 2012-09-11 13:26.

And when scientists pass by stalagmites and stalactites that obviously formed in a decade because they're on a bridge that was recently built, I guess the scientists have to wear blinders, because it's supposed to take thousands upon thousands of years. Talk about being the opposite of open-minded. An evolutionary mindset has to be closed to all evidence so it can reinterpret it to "fit" an unsupported theory that clearly goes against evidence we can see and measure.

Submitted by April (not verified) on Thu, 2012-11-01 12:20.

Scientists pride themselves on being "free thinkers." In fact, they think only in predetermined ways that fit their own philosophy and the standards of their field — standards, I might add, which are based on theory, not on actual evidence. (By the way, scientists love to call their interpretation of data "evidence," but the fact of the matter is, they are merely making up fictions. They are not really interested in the evidence. What they want is support for their theory. So when the evidence does not agree with their theory, they throw the evidence out, or reinterpret it so that it "fits.)

Submitted by April (not verified) on Thu, 2012-11-01 12:16.

Scientists are foolish because they rely on their blind interpretation of data instead of on eye-witness testimony. That's why they can date amber samples as ancient when in fact the sample is as recent as this decade.